I have read all the sources I linked. Well, to be perfectly honest, for the ENTSO-E final report I read the summary and the relevant sections and for the actual FERC regulation, rather than the news posts I used to find the true root source, I left it at the introduction which says "non-synchronous sources must provide reactive power as per this technical specification from Y date".

But that's of course not good enough.

But you know that I am right, which is why you're trying to avoid facing reality and pretending everything I say is false, rather than dare to face it.

The consensus among grid operators and researchers is that renewable grids are a solved problem. They’ve moved on to the implementation details instead. Reddit is firmly stuck in the past though.

But, if you are curious, the modeling lands on a combination of this depending on local circumstances:

- Wind, overbuilt

- Solar, overbuilt

- Demand response

- Long range transmission to smooth out variability

- Existing nuclear power (for the grids that have them)

- Exising hydro

- Storage

- In places with district heating: CHP plants running on carbon neutral fuels.

- An emergency reserve of gas turbines. Run them on carbon neutral fuel if their emissions matter.

Why do you want to waste tens of billions of euros on handouts per new built large scale reactor?

> I have read all the sources I linked.

“I've spent 5 hours reading official materials before responding to a comment on HN”, yeah, sure.

> The consensus among grid operators and researchers is that renewable grids are a solved problem.

The consensus is that you have no understanding of the topic.

I recently followed this [cycle of conferences on the future of electricity grids]( https://www.college-de-france.fr/fr/agenda/seminaire/la-tran...) and the researchers's opinion is the litteral opposite of what you've just said.

Who should I believe, the professional or the HN crank using perplexity. Though question …